Q regarding oral sex

[taylorc]

I can’t imagine being able to discuss the pros and cons of oral sex with my parents! I can handle periods and such, but oral sex is just too much. It’s embarrassing!

 

[kage_ar]

I can’t imagine being able to discuss the pros and cons of oral sex with my parents! I can handle periods and such, but oral sex is just too much. It’s embarrassing!

There should be a female involved in the religious classes that can disucss questions of an intimate nature with the girls. I do agree that we do not live in a perfect world and not every teen can go ask either parent such questions.

 

[alongexpectedpa]

The reason why people have oral sex is-plainly put-because they are perverse. There is no reason for partaking in oral sex other than for the purpose of fullfilling a person’s sick and demented desires. It is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.

When did He tell this to you?

 

[Shlomey]

Yesterday, after reading Theology of the Body made simple by Fr. Anthony Percy, my 14-year-old student asked me, “WHY do people have oral sex?”

I’ve been having difficulty to explain it to her without being too explicit. Can anybody help me?

Thanks

I would simply say: because of sexual pleasure

One could give a better explanation, but that’d be way too inappropriate for the sheila.

 

[TLM08]

Yesterday, after reading Theology of the Body made simple by Fr. Anthony Percy, my 14-year-old student asked me, “WHY do people have oral sex?”

I’ve been having difficulty to explain it to her without being too explicit. Can anybody help me?

Thanks

Oral sex is a lot like chewing bubble gum instead of having a candy bar.

 

[LittleDeb]

Oral Stimulation of Wife Permitted

“There’s nothing in the Church’s vision of the body and sexual love that singles out the genitals as being objectively “unkissable” as part of a husband and wife’s intimate foreplay to intercourse. The term “oral sex,” however, most often refers to acts in which orgasm is sought and achieved apart from an act of intercourse. Indeed, many couples consider such behavior a desirable alternative to normal intercourse. And, yes, this is wrong, even for married couples—though the clarification made above regarding female orgasm is applicable here as well: Mutual climax (or at least climax during penetration) remains the ideal to strive for, but it’s not inherently wrong if the wife climaxes as a result of oral stimulation, so long as it’s within the context fo a completed act of intercourse.” [Christopher West, *Good News About Sex and Marriage

, (Cincinnati, Ohio: Servant Books, 2000), 92-93]

Nihil Obstat: Rev. Gerard Beigel, S.T.D.
Censor Librorum
Mr. Timothy J. McCarthy, J.C.L.
Vice Chancellor, Archdiocese of Denver

Imprimatur: Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver
April 27, 2004The distinction of stimulation is key. The secular “oral sex” is in fact a perverse act. Oral stimulation is a normal part of foreplay.

I am so glad that West has fixed the wording in his new editions to stress this distinction. I talked to his assistant in person and said that I could not recommend his earlier book as long as that distinction was not clearer.

As to the OP. I would answer the question in a public context not privately. Treat the question as one anonymously received. If the young lady is asking a 23-YO man, she is not comfortable asking her parents. I know I wasn’t at the time. (My poor mom has made up for it by sitting the kids whenever DH and I go to give a chastity or NFP talk. )

I would make very clear the distinction listed by West.

 

[jkiernan56]

The distinction of stimulation is key. The secular “oral sex” is in fact a perverse act. Oral stimulation is a normal part of foreplay.

I am so glad that West has fixed the wording in his new editions to stress this distinction. I talked to his assistant in person and said that I could not recommend his earlier book as long as that distinction was not clearer.

As to the OP. I would answer the question in a public context not privately. Treat the question as one anonymously received. If the young lady is asking a 23-YO man, she is not comfortable asking her parents. I know I wasn’t at the time. (My poor mom has made up for it by sitting the kids whenever DH and I go to give a chastity or NFP talk. )

I would make very clear the distinction listed by West.

Am I understanding you correctly that you view oral penetration as a part of stimulation is a perverse act? Where do the limits of oral stimulation begin and end? Christopher West and his explanation of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body is not Ex Cathedra. It is his understanding and interpretation of John Paul II. I don’t necessarily interpret his words as indicating that oral penetration is outside the boundary of acceptible oral stimulation as long as the act is consumated by intercourse.

 

[LittleDeb]

Am I understanding you correctly that you view oral penetration as a part of stimulation is a perverse act? Where do the limits of oral stimulation begin and end? Christopher West and his explanation of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body is not Ex Cathedra. It is his understanding and interpretation of John Paul II. I don’t necessarily interpret his words as indicating that oral penetration is outside the boundary of acceptible oral stimulation as long as the act is consumated by intercourse.

From where in my statement do you draw these conclusions?

My explanation of Church teaching is drawn from the design of the body. Although I would like to clarify some wording. The mouth is designed to receive. The mouth is not designed to be penetrated. The difference might seem subtle, but in fact is important to the the dignity of the persons in the act. (On a related note: the vagina is also designed to receive, not to be penetrated.)

My statement has nothing to do with West’s interpretation or otherwise. My statement also has nothing to do with which body parts go where in the act of stimulation. My statement is that, “Oral sex, as defined by secular society, is a perverse act.” My further statement is that oral stimulation is a normal part of marital foreplay (after all kissing is oral stimulation,) and must only be done in union with the design of the body.

Basically, although I don’t mean to go off-topic, I disagree with theologians who state that rectal penetration can be used as foreplay. Since the male rectum cannot be penetrated, neither can the female rectum. Same body part, same rules apply. The sphincter is not designed to be penetrated. Stimulation near the anus is within the design of the body, penetration is not.

The entire basis to JPII’s TOB is that the answers to these questions don’t need to be up for debate. Our very bodies answer the questions clearly. Theology of the Body is not just about the sexual practices of the married. It is also about the identity of the individual and society as a whole. The trouble with most discussions about sex is that it is usually, “What can we do?” or “How close can we get to the line without crossing it?”

These questions lead to so much speculation. JPII said, and I am paraphrasing here, “Begin with the Designer to understand the design.”

 

[jkiernan56]

The mouth is designed to receive. The mouth is not designed to be penetrated. The difference might seem subtle, but in fact is important to the the dignity of the persons in the act. (On a related note: the vagina is also designed to receive, not to be penetrated.)

We are dealing with semantics here. I do not think there is anything inherently evil or wrong to use the word penetration as if it degraded the dignity of persons in the act. But since you seem to have a problem with the word and think it is degrading of human dignity, I will leave it out of this discussion. I will use the words Giver and Receiver.

My statement has nothing to do with West’s interpretation or otherwise. My statement also has nothing to do with which body parts go where in the act of stimulation. My statement is that, “Oral sex, as defined by secular society, is a perverse act.” My further statement is that oral stimulation is a normal part of marital foreplay (after all kissing is oral stimulation,) and must only be done in union with the design of the body.

Please explain to me your understanding of oral sex – “as defined by secular society. If you are objecting to the act of oral stimulation which does not end up in the marital embrace nor does it intend to, then I can understand your objection. If you have a problem with vaginal oral stimulation that DOES lead to the marital embrace, then I would have to object with your position. But I will wait for clarification from you before I go on.

The entire basis to JPII’s TOB is that the answers to these questions don’t need to be up for debate. Our very bodies answer the questions clearly. Theology of the Body is not just about the sexual practices of the married. It is also about the identity of the individual and society as a whole. The trouble with most discussions about sex is that it is usually, “What can we do?” or “How close can we get to the line without crossing it?”

These questions lead to so much speculation. JPII said, and I am paraphrasing here, “Begin with the Designer to understand the design.”

John Paul II’s Theology of the Body is a study of the Designer. I think it gives more insight into the Holy Trinity than you will find almost anywhere else. It is not meant to be a handbook of what we can and can’t do – but rather as you so beautifully said – it gives us an insight into the artist – and our bodies are the song. We can actually see and understand God in and through the design of our bodies. It is not meant to be interpreted as “oral vaginal stimulation” is a perverse act. If that act is done without the marital embrace, then there is a legitimate reason for objection.

As far as your other objections for other kinds of foreplay stimulation, I don’t even want to go there … lol … no pun intended

 

[LittleDeb]

I will use the words Giver and Receiver.

Those terms are much better! It is much nicer to draw correlations to Eucharistic consecration when we use these better terms.

Please explain to me your understanding of oral sex – “as defined by secular society. If you are objecting to the act of oral stimulation which does not end up in the marital embrace nor does it intend to, then I can understand your objection. If you have a problem with vaginal oral stimulation that DOES lead to the marital embrace, then I would have to object with your position. But I will wait for clarification from you before I go on.

We are in complete agreement. Oral sex is an act meant to replace the marital act. I usually also say it is a mimicry of the marital act. Oral stimulation is an act of arousal. When people ask, “ok well your answers are well and good in the abstract, but how do you apply them in real life?” My answer, “When the mouth ceases behaving like a mouth and is instead mimicking a vagina or penis, it is time for consummation.” Does that help clarify?

John Paul II’s Theology of the Body is a study of the Designer. I think it gives more insight into the Holy Trinity than you will find almost anywhere else. It is not meant to be a handbook of what we can and can’t do – but rather as you so beautifully said – it gives us an insight into the artist – and our bodies are the song. We can actually see and understand God in and through the design of our bodies. It is not meant to be interpreted as “oral vaginal stimulation” is a perverse act. If that act is done without the marital embrace, then there is a legitimate reason for objection.

I totally agree. I too said that it isn’t a list of do’s and don’ts. It is an understanding of the Designer and enjoying His design to its fullest possible potential.

As far as your other objections for other kinds of foreplay stimulation, I don’t even want to go there … lol … no pun intended

LOL! I have to “go there” but only in discussions because people ask.

Thanks for the clarification questions and answers. I really am trying to understand where you got that I was against oral stimulation (of any kind) because I stated that secular “oral sex” was perverse. I think it is semantics, but semantics can be very important in proper understanding.

 

[jkiernan56]

Those terms are much better! It is much nicer to draw correlations to Eucharistic consecration when we use these better terms.
We are in complete agreement. Oral sex is an act meant to replace the marital act. I usually also say it is a mimicry of the marital act. Oral stimulation is an act of arousal. When people ask, “ok well your answers are well and good in the abstract, but how do you apply them in real life?” My answer, “When the mouth ceases behaving like a mouth and is instead mimicking a vagina or penis, it is time for consummation.” Does that help clarify?
I totally agree. I too said that it isn’t a list of do’s and don’ts. It is an understanding of the Designer and enjoying His design to its fullest possible potential. LOL! I have to “go there” but only in discussions because people ask.

Thanks for the clarification questions and answers. I really am trying to understand where you got that I was against oral stimulation (of any kind) because I stated that secular “oral sex” was perverse. I think it is semantics, but semantics can be very important in proper understanding.

I apologize since I presumed to know what you meant by oral sex. As far as the mouth mimicking other body parts, honestly I do not have a problem with that type of stimulation as long as the couple embraces the marital act to consumate. What other body parts the mouth may or may not become is not even in my vocabulary. If the intention of a couple is the marital embrace, then the type of foreplay we are discussing here is not a consideration for me. If your conscience tells you something different, thats OK. But what your conscience tells you is not necessarily something that should be a binding rule for all other consciences. I respect your right to be wrong … lol … just kidding.

 

[DustinM]

I agree with others that the OP may not be the best person to explain this to a young female. It could go over very badly, create rumors, etc.

However, to answer the question:

It feels good.

It is a way of building up to full-blown sex.

It’s another way of being intimate with that one special someone.

It is another way to share bodies.

It is another way to be romantic.

It is another way to show/give a very special intimate kind of trust.

 

[LittleDeb]

I apologize since I presumed to know what you meant by oral sex. As far as the mouth mimicking other body parts, honestly I do not have a problem with that type of stimulation as long as the couple embraces the marital act to consumate. What other body parts the mouth may or may not become is not even in my vocabulary. If the intention of a couple is the marital embrace, then the type of foreplay we are discussing here is not a consideration for me. If your conscience tells you something different, thats OK. But what your conscience tells you is not necessarily something that should be a binding rule for all other consciences. I respect your right to be wrong … lol … just kidding.

Then I am still not communicating well then. I think we agree.

My wording is aimed at helping young people understand that there is a difference between the two types of acts even though the mechanics may appear the same.

I will rethink my wording for my future talks. Thank you for the feedback.

 

[jkiernan56]

Then I am still not communicating well then. I think we agree.

My wording is aimed at helping young people understand that there is a difference between the two types of acts even though the mechanics may appear the same.

I will rethink my wording for my future talks. Thank you for the feedback.

LittleDeb -

Did I hear you say you know and work with Christopher West in teaching others about Theology of the Body?

 

[LittleDeb]

LittleDeb -

Did I hear you say you know and work with Christopher West in teaching others about Theology of the Body?

Not with West, personally. I just met him when he gave a talk locally and I spoke with his assistant. I have found that he is one of quite a few authorities who specialize in a specific area of TOB. But it is Dr. Michael Waldstein who is the living authority on TOB. He is the original translator and discussed his translation extensively with our late Holy Father.

Where I go to get clarification on my understanding of TOB is from a friend of mine, a student of Dr. Waldstein’s. He is getting his (second) doctorate from a school in Austria where Dr. Waldstein teaches. They are also good friends.

He has promised me a copy of the outline Dr. Waldstein uses to teach his class. I am incredibly excited about it. I almost exploded with joy when my friend told Dr. Waldstein that he knows “a woman back home who really ‘gets’ TOB.” One of the proudest moments of my life, honestly. But no, I am not pedigreed personally. So I am just an ordinary goofball plodding through it too. I give talks on it in relation to NFP and chastity.

Sorry OP for the temporary thread hijack.

 

[jkiernan56]

Not with West, personally. I just met him when he gave a talk locally and I spoke with his assistant. I have found that he is one of quite a few authorities who specialize in a specific area of TOB. But it is Dr. Michael Waldstein who is the living authority on TOB. He is the original translator and discussed his translation extensively with our late Holy Father.

Where I go to get clarification on my understanding of TOB is from a friend of mine, a student of Dr. Waldstein’s. He is getting his (second) doctorate from a school in Austria where Dr. Waldstein teaches. They are also good friends.

He has promised me a copy of the outline Dr. Waldstein uses to teach his class. I am incredibly excited about it. I almost exploded with joy when my friend told Dr. Waldstein that he knows “a woman back home who really ‘gets’ TOB.” One of the proudest moments of my life, honestly. But no, I am not pedigreed personally. So I am just an ordinary goofball plodding through it too. I give talks on it in relation to NFP and chastity.

Sorry OP for the temporary thread hijack.

Thank you for sharing that with me. I only have John Paul II’s TOB book and another one by Christopher West. I didn’t even know about Dr. Waldstein and will keep my ears and eyes open. Even though you call yourself ordinary, you are not ordinary to God. You are very blessed and I will try to remember you along with Christopher West in my prayer. You are doing something extremely important in the Church as I’m sure you are well aware.

 

[Shlomey]

Oral Stimulation of Wife Permitted

“There’s nothing in the Church’s vision of the body and sexual love that singles out the genitals as being objectively “unkissable” as part of a husband and wife’s intimate foreplay to intercourse. The term “oral sex,” however, most often refers to acts in which orgasm is sought and achieved apart from an act of intercourse. Indeed, many couples consider such behavior a desirable alternative to normal intercourse. And, yes, this is wrong, even for married couples—though the clarification made above regarding female orgasm is applicable here as well: Mutual climax (or at least climax during penetration) remains the ideal to strive for, but it’s not inherently wrong if the wife climaxes as a result of oral stimulation, so long as it’s within the context fo a completed act of intercourse.” [Christopher West, *Good News About Sex and Marriage

, (Cincinnati, Ohio: Servant Books, 2000), 92-93]

Nihil Obstat: Rev. Gerard Beigel, S.T.D.
Censor Librorum
Mr. Timothy J. McCarthy, J.C.L.
Vice Chancellor, Archdiocese of Denver

Imprimatur: Most Rev. Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver
April 27, 2004



I thought the usage of sexual vices in such ways were not permitted. So basically, married couples can do anything as long as the they both “come” when performing the “marital act”???

sounds pretty Jewish

 

[jkiernan56]

I thought the usage of sexual vices in such ways were not permitted. So basically, married couples can do anything as long as the they both “come” when performing the “marital act”???

sounds pretty Jewish

Or rather … they try to in the marital embrace.

But as far as being able to do anything … there are limits as to what is morally acceptible behavior and what is not. For instance, having an orgy is not acceptible morally … or beastiality … and I don’t even want to talk about that … it is beyond reprehensible …

But given that a married couple is in a exclusive relationship with each other and their object of desire is each other … and the act is consummated … it does not always necessarily guarantee the end result for both husband and wife … although that is their intent and they try to carry out that intent …

 

[Shlomey]

Or rather … they try to in the marital embrace.

But as far as being able to do anything … there are limits as to what is morally acceptible behavior and what is not. For instance, having an orgy is not acceptible morally … or beastiality … and I don’t even want to talk about that … it is beyond reprehensible …

But given that a married couple is in a exclusive relationship with each other and their object of desire is each other … and the act is consummated … it does not always necessarily guarantee the end result for both husband and wife … although that is their intent and they try to carry out that intent …

So, pardon the language now: but a marriec couple can make use of bj and hj and perhaps other practices so long they end up “coming” in the marital act?

Does this not sound “liberal”?

 

[jkiernan56]

So, pardon the language now: but a marriec couple can make use of bj and hj and perhaps other practices so long they end up “coming” in the marital act?

Does this not sound “liberal”?

Please re-read Post #17 by Randy Carson. It explains it better than I ever could.